State legislators continue to push for more information about why the state Department of Transportation failed to obtain timely federal reimbursements for highway projects, even though more than $300 million was involved. In a Thursday hearing, DOT officials finally acknowledged that the delay occurred but failed to provide a satisfactory reason. So far, the DOT's less than adequate response to legislative questioning underscores the necessity of agency reform that will produce the forthrightness and accountability that the public deserves.

A highly critical review of agency operations by the Legislative Audit Council last month raised serious questions about contracts with consultants, including management fees that appear unreasonably high. The agency has hired firms that didn't score among the top companies by the DOT's own ratings. Some consulting firms include former DOT officials and employees, some of whom were rehired by the agency at far greater rates than would have been paid in-house.

The audit also cited apparent favoritism in the hiring of friends and family of at least two commissioners, both of whom have been among the DOT administrator's most vocal supporters. The list of critical findings goes on and on.

But legislative hearings so far have given the most attention to the agency's failure to seek federal reimbursements for projects during much of the 2004 and 2005 legislation sessions. Doubtless that's because of speculation that the DOT did so to mislead the Legislature about its revenue standing, presumably to bolster its case for increased revenue to the agency.

On Thursday, agency officials attempted to send a Senate committee off into a thicket of unrelated issues when asked about the matter. But ultimately sharp questioning by committee members, including Sens. Larry Grooms, R-Berkeley, and Chip Campsen, R-Charleston, elicited an acknowledgment that the delay occurred. Their efforts were aided by a DOT memo produced by the audit council, showing it was done as a matter of policy. A DOT finance official admitted the loss of as much as $1.5 million in interest to the agency as a result. However, an agency spokesman denied attempting to deceive the Legislature.

But that was about as much light that DOT officials were able, or willing, to shed on the subject. Unfortunately, DOT Executive Director Elizabeth Mabry wasn't present to answer the questions. She reportedly is under the weather. In its initial written response to the audit, the agency denied delaying billings to lower cash balances or that the state lost interest income as a result.

The issue is of particular interest to the Legislature because of a continuing push for more funding by the agency. The Legislature is responsible for providing those funds, through an increase in the gas tax or by other means, and has a right to expect the DOT to deal in good faith on financial matters. The response at the hearings so far is hardly heartening, nor is it likely to encourage the Legislature's support for additional revenue next session.

For example, a DOT finance official declared that the amount of interest lost by the delay in federal reimbursements was a miniscule part of the agency's budget, adding, in effect, that he normally didn't deal with such small sums. Such a cavalier response to a question about public funds will be unlikely to endear the agency to the Legislature. Neither will the agency's efforts to beat around the bush when confronted about issues raised in the audit.

Even the genial Sen. Grooms, who chairs the subcommittee, showed occasional exasperation at the difficulty in extracting information from agency spokesmen. At the beginning of Thursday's hearing, he cited the sharp variance between the LAC findings and the DOT's response in two previous hearings, adding, "It looks like somebody isn't telling the truth." And then he proceeded to place everyone who testified under oath.

So far, the DOT's response to the audit and to legislative investigators has largely been to talk about what a great job the agency is doing, whether that assertion is to the point or not. Legislators shouldn't let the DOT off the hook. Three more hearings are scheduled next week by Senate and House committees. In the interest of time, the committees should consider consolidation, as they settle down to a careful look at what constitutes fact, fallacy or fiction. DOT should be made to recognize that talking around the numerous issues raised in the audit isn't a viable tactic as legislators examine how to make the agency more answerable for its management practices.